Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU
UAES Bulletins

Agricultural Experiment Station

11-1-1922

Bulletin No. 183 - Water-Holding Capacity of

Irrigated Soils
Orson W. Israelsen
Frank L. West

Recommended Citation
Israelsen, Orson W. and West, Frank L., "Bulletin No. 183 - Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils" (1922). UAES Bulletins. Paper
149.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/uaes_bulletins/149

This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural
Experiment Station at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in UAES Bulletins by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact
becky.thoms@usu.edu.

 II

W ater-Holding Capacity of
Irrigated Soils
By

ORSON W. ISRAELSEN and FRANK L. WEST

BULLETIN NO. 183

Utah Agricultural College

EXPERIMENT STATION

Logan, Utah

November, 1922

UTAH AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

BOARD OF DIIJ.ECTORS
A. W. IVINS ______ ___________________ ______ _______________ _______ -------_______ _________ __ :!!Ialt Lake City
ANG US T . WRIGHT ________________________________________________________________________________ Ogden
C. P. CARDON _______________________________________ . ______________________ .. _. ___________ . ___ . ___ . __ Logan
LOIS C. H _-\ YBALL _____ . _____ __________ . ________________ ... ______________ .. ________________ .. _____ Logan
FRANK B. STEPHENS ________ . ____ ___ ___ . __________________________________________ Salt Lake City
JOHN D. PETERS ____ ._. _____ ___ . _____ ___________________ _____________________ _______ __ Brigham City
W .S. HANSEN_. _____ ____ . ______ . ___________________________ . _____________________________ . _______ Fielding
R. L. JUD D __ _______________ _________ __ _____ . _______ ______ ______ _________________ .. ______ Salt Lake City
J. H. WATERS __________________________________________________________________________ Salt Lake City
E. O. HOW ARD ______________ __________ .. ________________________________________________ Salt Lake City
O. H . BUDG E ____ _________ . ___ .. _______________________________________ -.. _____________________________ Logan
H. E. CROCKE_T T , Secretary of State (ex-officio) ____ . _____________ Salt Lake City
OFFICERS OF THE BOARD
A. W. IVINS ____________ . ___ . _____ . ___________ ... ______ . __________ _________ _____________ ____ ______ President
FRANK B. STEPHENS. _______ . _____ . ________ . _________________ .. _________________ Vice-President
JOHN L. COBURN ____________ . _____________ .. ______________ .. ________________ Secretary-Treasurer
EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF
E. G. PETERSON, Ph. D., President of the College
WILLIAM PETERSON, B. S., ______________________ .. ____ ~- -_------Director and Geologist
H. J. FREDERICK, D. V. M.,. ___________ . _________________________________________ Veterinarian
F. L. WEST, Ph. D., ________________________ . _____ . __________ .. ________ ________ ______ _______ .. Physicist
J. E . GREAVES, Ph. D., ______ ___ ___ . __ .. __ . _____ ._ .. ________ .Chemist and Bacteriologist
W . E . CARROLL, Ph. D. , ______ . __ ..... ________________ ...... __________ Animal Husbandman
BYRON ALDER, B. S., ____ .. __ .... __ .. __ . ___ ._._ .... ____ .. ________________________ ... _.. Poultryman
GEORGE R. HILL, Jr., Ph. D., .. _________ .... ___________ .. __ ... __________________ .. ____ .Botanist
O. W. ISRAELSEN, M. S. , __ ... _______ .. _________ .Irrlgation and Drainage Engineer
D. S. JENNINGS, Ph. D., _____________ .. __________ .. _____ . ____________________ _________ Soil Surveys
*R. J . BECRAFT, B. S. ,_______________ . ________________ ________'_____ . ______ Range Management
GEORGE STEWART, M. S. , ______________________________ . _______________________ . __ .Field Crops
R. L. HILL, Ph. D., _________________________________________________________ . ____ Human Nutrition
E . B. BROSSARD, Ph. D., ___________________________________________ .. __ . __ Farm Management
1. M. HAWLEY, Ph. D., .... ___________________________ .. ____________________________ .Entomologist
W. L . W ANLASS, Ph. D., ________________________ . _______________________________________ Marketing
GEORG E B. CAINE, M. A. , _________________________________ . _______ . ______________________ Dairying
C. T. HIRST, M. S., __________ ______ ___ __ ____ .. ___________________________________ Associate Chemist
WILLARD GARDNER, Ph. D., __________________________________________ Associate Physicist
B. L. RICHARDS, Ph. D., ___________ ____ .. _________________________________ Associate Botanist
EZRA G. CARTER, M. S., __ ____ _______ ___ _______________ _________ A'ssociate Bacteriologist
M. D. THOMAS, A. B., B. Sc., __________ . _____________________________ Associate Agronomist
D. W. PITTMAN, M. S., __________________________________________________ Assistant Agronomist
A. F. BRACKEN, B. S., __________________________________________________ Assistant Agronomist
T. H. ABELL, M. S., _________________________ .. _______________________ Assistant Horticulturist
GUSTAV WILSTER, M. S., ______________________________________________ Assistant Dairyman
L. F. NUFFER, B. S., ___ . _________________________ .. _____________________ . __ . __ Assistant Botanist
HERBERT J. PACK, B. S., __________________ .. ___________ .. ______ .Assistant Entomologist
A. L . WILSON, B. S., ___________ .... ______ .. __ .Superintendent Davis County Farm
J. R. BATEMAN, B. S., .. __________ _______ .. _________ Superintendent Panguitch Farm
PETER NELSON, B. S., _______________________ .. ____ .. ______ . __________ Farm Superintendent
BLANCHE CONDIT-PITTMAN, A. B.,-- ------.-----__________ . __ .Clerk and Librarian
DAVID, A. BURGOYNE, B. S., ______ ... ____ . ______ . __ ..... ____ Secretary to the Director
IN CHARGE OF COOPERATIVE INVESTIGATIONS WITH
THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
L. 14. WINSOR, B. S., _______________________ ... __________ __ ___________ ... __ Irrigation Engineer
*oi. leave.

WATER-HOLDING CAPACITY OF IRRIGATED SOILi

By

ORSON W. ISRAELSEN and FRANK L. WEST

CONTENTS
Topic

Page

Introductory ________ ____ ________ ____ __ ____ ____ ___ ______ _____ __ _______ __ ________ ______ _____ ____ ___ .. _. _____ __ ... _ 3
Water Capacity of Millville Loam Soil, Utah Experiment Station Farm 4
Investigations by Widtsoe and Associates ___ ___ ______ __. _____ __. __. ____ ._. __._ ..... 4
Investigations by the Authors ___ . __ _____._. _______ ___ _. ___ _... _____ . _____ .. __ ____ _....... 5
Plan of the Authors' In ve stigation s __ . _____ ___ . ___ ___ .. ___ ____ ___ __ . __ . ___ ... _..... 6
Results of the Authors' Investigations ___ __. __ ... ___ ...... _. __... _. ___ ............ 6
Investigations by Harris and Associates_. __ .. ___ ___ .... _. _______ _.. __ ... __._ ......... 10
Other Field Measurements of Water Capacity __ ____ . ___ .. __ ___ ... ______ ......... _.. _..... 1~
Volca nic Loam Water Cap a city ______ ______ ____ ___ ______ ._... __ ..... ___... _... _.. __........ 14
Fine Sandy Loam Water Capacity _____________ .. _____ ___ ___ __ ______ _. __ ._ .............. 16
Purpose of Water-ca pacity Studies _____ ____ ___ __.. ______ ___ .. __ ............ _. _............ _.18
Some Wate r-ca pacity Measurement s by Others ... _. ___ _..... _... _. _._ .. _............ _... 18
Applications of Water-capacity Measurements in Irrigation ....... _. ___ ___ ___ 22
Summary and Conclusions. ______ __ __ ____ __ _____ . ___ ___ ___ ______ ______ ____ __ . __ ___________ . __ _. _. _. ___! 3

INTRODUCTORY
The expression "Inches Water Appl,ied" as used in this bulletin is the equivalent of so many acre-inches of water applied
to one acre of land. One acre-inch of water means one inch in
depth over an acre. It is equal approximately to the quantity
of water supplied by a stream of one cubic foot per second dowing continuously for one hour.

All information that will 'enable the irrigator to use water

economically is valuable to arid-climate agriculture. In many
arid-climate regions, including the western part of the United
States, excessive w'a ste of water occurs in the irrigation of highland porous soil areas, as a result of lack of information concerning the capacity of the soil to hold water. Following the waste
of water on the uplands by excessive percolation through open
soils, vast . lowland areas are rendered partially or wholly nonproductive by water-logging. To illustrate, a gravelly bench
soil four feet deep, if underlain by a coarse open gravel to a
great depth, has the power to hold but a small amount of water.
If, to such a soil, a large amount of water is applied in a single
irrigation, then unnecessary waste through deep percolation
inevitably follows. Furthermore, the wasted water slowly but
surely finds its way to low-lying lands from which there i. in-

Bulletin No. 183

adequate natural drainage, and water-logging results. It is

doubtful if an acre of a typical upland soil, four feet deep, would
retain more than three acre-inches of irrigation water. If
therefore it took si~ hours adequately to cover an acre with a
2-second-foot stream, the total amount of water applied would
be 12 acre-inches an acre, or four times what the soil could
retain. Such excessive applications frequently result fro111 the
difficulty in getting the water spread uniformly over the surface.
In the illustration given above it is clear that 9 acre-inches, of the
12 acre-inches applied to one acre, must be lost to the upland
soil and added to the lowland soil, provided of course allowance
is made for evaporation losses. The experiments reported in this
bulletin were planned to measure the capacity of some soils to
retain water, and thereby assist the irrigator better to determine
the proper amount of water to apply to such soils in single
irrigations.
The capacity of different soils to retain water lias been measured in two ways: first, by a study of small samples of soil in the
laboratory, and second, by determining the moisture content of
the soil in the field before and after heavy irrigations, or special
flooding. Only those water-capacity tests, made in the field or
in the laboratory under conditions nearly like field conditions, are
reported in this bulletin. Field tests are reported first for the
deep loam soils of the Utah Experiment Station at Greenville and
later for typical irrigated soil in the Gem Valley, Idaho, near
Grace and Central, and finally for a typical fine sandy loam in
the Sevier Valley , Utah, near Richfield.
- -For the reader who is especially interested in water-capacity
studies there is also presented a summary of water-capacity tests,
both field and laboratory, made by other investigators working in
various western states. After this summary brief consideration
is given to the application of water-capacity studies in irrigation practice.
During the last twenty years numerous moisture-content
observations have been made by the Utah Experiment Station.
The earlier Utah work was done by Widtsoe and associates
and this was followed by Harris and associates. The work
of ~Tidtsoe and associates is summarized before presenting
the field tests conducted by the authors, after which the work
of Harris and associates is reviewed.
WATER CAPACITY OF MILLVILLE LOAM SOIL,
UTAH EXPERIMENT FARM, GREENVILLE

Investigations by Widtsoe and Associates.-The water capacity of Millvill~ loam soil at the Experiment Station Farm

Wat er-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

was first investigated by Widtsoe and McLaughlin in 1902 and

1903. Several thousand soil moisture tests were made, and it
was found that the maximum amount of water held in the surface foot 24 hours after irrigation was 23.8 per cent of the dry
weight of soil, or 3.85 1 inches of water. In 1902 the maximum
increase from 44 trials, in each of which 71/2 inches of water
were applied, was 2.14 inches in the surface foot. The minimum
was 0.14 of an inch in the eigh th foot, and the average for ' the
upper 8 feet of soil was 0.72 of an inch per foot of soil. In 1903'
the average max imum retained f r om thirty-t hree 71/2-inch irri.
gations on several plats was 2 inches in the surface foot; the
minimum was 0.20 of an inch in the sixth foot; and the average
for the upper 6 feet was 0.95 of an inch, or almost 1 inch for
each foot depth of soil.
.
As a result. of near ly 3,000 trial 2 covering five years' work,
Widtsoe and McLaughlin found the average maximum moisture
content to a depth of 8 feet to be 18 per cent, or 2.82 inches per
foot depth of soil. Furthermore, when t he moisture content
decreased to about 11.5 per cent the plants found great difficulty
in obtaining a sufficient wat er supply. It was therefore necessary to add in a single irrigation the difference between 18 and
11.5 per cent, or 6.5 per cent, wh'ch is equal to 1.05 inches of
water, for each foot of soil that needs moistening.
Investigations by the Authors.-Attention has been called
to the fact that only a few of the many investigations of soilmoisture capacity were applicable to field conditions and consequently of direct value in irrigation practice. The results of
some of the more valuable field investigations of moisture
capacity are reviewed in the latter part of this bulletin. However, most of the measurements reviewed were made on soils
that were growing crops and that were irrigated according to a
plan designed to obtain information concerning the duty of
water as shown by the amount and quality of the crop produced.
In these duty-of-water investigations some plats were given
large quantities of water dur 'ng the sea son , but seldom if ever
were any pats given excessive amounts during any single irrigation. Consequently, there is doubt as t o t h e completeness of
soil saturation.
PLAN OF THE AUTHORS' INVESTIGATIONS

To remove all doubt concerning completeness of saturation

and also to remove the infiuehce of the gr owing crop, the
1Based on an apparent spe cific gravit of 1.35.
2Widtsoe, J. A. and McLaug hlin, W . W .' The Movement of Water
in Irrigated Soils. Utah Agr . Exp . Sta. Bul. 115, p . 211 (1912).

Bulletin No. 183

authors prepared three rectangular basin plats to which exces~ive amounts of water were applied. Each plat was 38 feet long
and 33 feet wide. Around these plats levees about 2 feet high
were built with soil taken from outside of the plats; thus, the
soil in the plats was left undisturbed. The 'plats were numbered A, B, and C. Samples of soil were taken to ascertain the
moisture content before irrigation, after which Plat A was given
a 12-inch irrigation, Plat B a 24-inch irrigation, and Plat C a
36-inch irrigation.
The borings for moisture samples were made to a depth of
12 feet and the moisture determinations were made in the laboratory by the usual methods, the results being recorded in per
cent of the weight of the dry soil. In order to make the results
of the experiments more intelligible to the irrigator, the moisture percentages by weight have been converted to acre-inches
of water per acre-foot of soil, which is clearly very much like
percentages on the volume basis. To make this conversion from
per cent by weight to acre-inches of water per acre-foot of soil,
it is necessary to know with a fair degree of accuracy the weight
of a given volume of soil-one cubic foot, for example. Determinations of the weight of the soil were carefully made by
precise methods which will be described fully in a technical
paper. Suffice it to say here that on the basis of these determinations the relative volume of the three component parts of the
soil, namely, solid soil particles, water, and air, has been computed. The volumes of solid soil, together with the volumes of
air and water before and after irrigation, are shown in Figures
1 and 21.
RESULTS OF THE AUTHORS ' INVESTIGATIONS

Column a of Figure 1 shows that Plat A contained more than

6 inches of pore space for each 12 inches of soil. Of the 6 inches'
pore space in each foot more than 13~ inches' space was occupied
by water that was unavailable to plants and more than 33~ inches
by air. The quantities given in Figures 1 and 2 are averages for
the upper six feet of soil.
lIn studying the figures in this bulletin the following notes will be
helpful to the reader. The "Solid Soil" represented by the heavy black
column indicates the height in inches that one foot (12 inches) of soil
would be if it were possible first to heat it enough to drive out all the soil
moisture and then compact it under heavy pressure so as to drive out all
the air and leave a solid mass having no pore space. Clearly this cannot
be accomplished in the field, the soil particles, the moisture, and the air
being mixed in one heterogenous mass. The division of the three substances into separate part's helps greatly to understand the volumes occupied by each. For a given soil the air content must clearly decrease
as the water increases, and vice versa.

Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

.5od water avallahle to plants before

inqat,on ,shown by slanted lines: thus -..
Depfh In Inches Immediately helow

.$011 _~III'+'n"D

Ava/lak/e"'wafer aqded by Jrnqat/on

shown hy horizontal Imes : thus -.

Figure l.-Wuter content immediately before and one day after heavy
flooding of plats on the Utah Experiment Station, Greenville ~arm,
Logan, Utah . Work by the authors.

Columns c and e show that Plats Band C contained a little

less than 31j2 inches of air in each foot of soil. On the basis of
31j2 inches of air in each foot of soil, it is clear that the upper 6
feet of soil contained 21 inches of air. If therefore all of the 24
inches applied to Plat B had been held above the 6-foot depth it
would have filled all of the air space in the upper 6 feet of soil,
i. e., 21 inches, and it would have left 24-21=3 inches of water on
the surface of the gr ound. Likewise, if all of the 36 inches of

. Bulletin No . 183

8
pepth

In

Inches Immediately

CtJlmche.s of solId soli

b~/ow JO" surface

! 6./3 Inches

.5011 water available fo plants before

irrJ9at,on .5hown by slanted Imes: thus-'
Depfh

In

Inches Immediately below SOil surface

.Avallable water added by Irnq,'

shown hy hOrlzonial lines ;. fhu.s -+
Depth In Inches Immedu::ddy helow SOil surface

Figure 2.- W'ater content immediately before and ten days after heavy
flooding of three plats on the Utah Experiment Station, Greenville
Farm, L ogan, Utah. Work by the a uthors.

water that was applied to Plat C had been held above the 6-foot
depth it would have filled all of the air space in the soil and left
water on the surface to a depth of 36-21=15 inches. However,
Figure 1 clearly shows that the soil-air cannot for any considerable time be replaced by water in soil that is naturally welldrained, Note, for example, that one day after irr igation Plat B,
which was given twice the amount of water that Plat A received,
contained only one-four th inch more water per foot of soil, or

Water-Holding Capacity of IrTigated Soils

VI:? inches mare in the upper 6 feet. Likewise, ane day after
irrigation Plat C, which was given three times as much as Plat A,
contained an y ane-half inch mare water in each faot af sail, ar
a total of 3 inches mare in the upper 6 feet. Moreaver, Plats B
and C, which were given mare than enaugh water campletely to
fill all af the air space, cantained approximately 2 inches of air
in each foat af sail ane day after irrigatian. It will be nated
also. that these plats cantaned approximately 21/2 inches af
av ailable water one day after irrigatian. Ho.wever, much of this
water was still moving slawly dawnward. Final adjustment had
by no means taken place. This is clearly indicated in Figure 2
which shows the amaunts of air and water in the respective plats
10 days after irrigatian. It will be seen that 10 days after irrigation Plats Band C cantained but 11j2 inches af available water
in each foot af soil, being 1 inch less than the amount held one
day after. Immediately after irrigation all of the plats were
cavered with a heavy straw mulch by means of which surface
evaparation was quite largely prevented. Therefore the 1 inch
of water lost from each foot of sail between the I-day t~sts and
the 10-day tests was almost wholly a result of percolation below
the a-foot depth. Moisture determinations after the 10-may
tests show very slow losses into the deeper soil, thus indicating
that the soil had power to absorb and retain approximately 11/2
inches of available waterl. The fact that the amounts retained
in excess of the amount found before irrigation were relat.ively
small resulted from the large quantjties of available water held
before irrigation, i. e., about 1 inch af water far each foat of soil.
All observations of the maisture content of field soils show
that in order to produce the b-est growth of craps it is necessary
to keep some available water in the soil, i. e., some water
above the wilting point. For soils very rnuch like the Millville
laams of Greenville about 3 per cent of maisture as a minimum
above the wilting point appears to. give the best results. This
is equivalent approximately to 1/2 inch of water for each foot
of sail. If therefare it is necessary to. have a minimum of 1/2
inch af available water in each foat af soil to assure profitable
l In the opinion of the authors, the dow ward movement of the water
must continue until eq uilibrium is established with t he water-table.
Moisture determinations tha t were made throughout the summer after
the 10-day tests showed a continuou s but very slow downward movement of water, thus confirming this opinion. However, after the 16-day
tests the rate of movement was so low and the decrease in the amount
of water per week so small as to warrant th e conclusion that for practical irrigation purposes the tests 10 days after nooding represent the
effective wate r capacity. Th a t th~ selection of the time period after
flooding, which r epresents the maximum moisture capacity, provided
downward movement is still going on , must be made s om ewhat arbitrarily is full y recognized.

Bulletin No. 183

10

growth of crops and if the soil cannot hold more than 11/2 inches
of available water in each foot, then clearly it is. desirable to
apply just enough water at each irrigation to add 1 inch to each
foot of soil that needs water. For example, if occasional borings
with a soil auger show that the soil needs moistening only to a
depth of 6 feet, then 6 inches of water would be sufficient.
Likewise if only 3 feet of the soil really needs water, then 3
inches of water would be adequate, and the 'Water applied in excess of this amount would be wasted. To illustra.te further, the
moisture determinations in Plat C before irrigation indicated
that the soil needed little if any moisture below the 6-foot depth.
Its needs would therefore have been satisfied by the application
of 6 inches. Therefore of the 36 inches applied, about 30 inches,
or more than 80 per cent, was wasted by passing beloW' the depth
where it was needed. To be sure, it was expected in this case
that much of the water would be wasted because an excessive
amount was applied in order to ascertain the maximum possible
storage capacity Of the soil for water.
Investigations by Harris and Associates.-During the years
1912 and 1913 Harris .and Bracken1 made numerous observations
of the moisture content of Greenville soils before and after
different amounts of water were applied in irrigation.
The plats here reported were irrigated as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

1 inch of water weekly

21/2 inches of water weekly
5 inches of w:ater weekly
71/2 inches of water weekly

Tht? average percentages of moisture in the upper 10 feet of soil

before and after these irrigations are shown in Figure 3 of Utah
Experiment Station Bulletin No. 159. The average amounts of
water in each foot of soil to a depth of 6 feet before and after
the different irrigation treatments are here presented in Figures
3, 4, and 5. The columns in these figures are prepared on the
same plan as those in Figures 1 and 2 representing the moisture
content of the soils before and after the authors' experiments.
It is important, however, to note one difference in the charts.
Figures 1 and 2 present comparisons of moisture content before
irrigation with the moisture content of the same plat at different time periods after irrigation. However, columns c and d of
Figure 3 and the first four columns in Figures 4 and 5, i. e.,
columns a, b, c, and d, present comparisons of the moisture content before irrigation of a plat given one irrigation treatment to
IHarris, F. S. and Bracken, A. F. Soil Moisture Studies under Irrigation. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 159 (1917).

11

Water-H olding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

-:--""--:~~~~ Before
--'-,........-r-=r---'.....

.50t! water avatlobJe to plants befbre

Jrn,!otlon ~hown by slanted Ime:;; thus

Irrl'l'

i'"
S.

-+

Before~
Irrrq. ;::,-

(')
~

"

:3

'"

Cl

C;
~

"'"

v.~

:-;

Rf'ter ",,-Jrnq. ~

Available water added by Irn9oflon

shot.ln

by hortz onfal Jmes: thus

below soil
":,,.,,:. '.<>; ,;.'., .- :::;~:-''.16efore

'"
~-

~2~~ Irnq.

Figure 3.-Water content comparisons between different plats before

and after different irrigation treatments on the Utah Experiment
Station, Greenville Farm, Logan, Utah.
Work by Harris et al.

the moisture content after irrigation of a different plat which

was given a different treatment. The first 2 columns in Figure
3 and the last 2 columns in each of the Figures 3, 4, and 5 compare moisture content before irrigation with the moisture con-tent of the same plat after irrigation. The purpose of comparing the moisture content of some plats before irrigation to that.
after irrigating in different plats which received different.
amounts of water is to shOWl how the capacity of a given soil to
hold the water applied to it is dependent on the original watercontent of the soil and on the amount of water applied. Very
careful study is essential to a clear understanding of the sig-nlficance of these comparisons. This will be aided by a comparison of the various columns after attention is again directed to,
some physical properties of the soils under consideration.

12

Bulletin No . 183

6erore::- .

'rnq.

~:;:-.:.~-...,...;.....;...~,

,:

S.

ct

: lIf'ter' ~

. Irrlq. S.

w.:::......;'T-'-::...r:=

So"

wat er oval/able fo plant's before

"rl qat/on shown by slanted Jmes: thu s -+

.Depth

In

mches Immed/Otely' below sod

AvaIlable wafer added by Irrlqotlon

.5ho..,,, by hortl-on.t al
Itnes : thus -+
Depth", mche3 1m
below sOIl

Figure 4.-Water content before and 'after different irrigation t r eatments

on the Utah Experiment Station, Greenville Farm ,
Lo gan, Utah. Work by Harris e t al.

It .will be noted, as in Figures 1 arid 2, that less than onehalf of the total 12-inch G~- ace occupied by' each foot of soil is
really solid soil part icles, while 6.13 inches of each foot, or more
than one-half, is occupied by moisture and air. Columns a and b
of Figur.e 3 show that the plats which were given 1 inch of
. water weekly had app:!'oximately one-half inch of available
water' before irrigat ion and only about three-fourths inch after
irrigation. The average increase from a I-inch irrigation was
therefore only one-fourth of one inch in each -foot depth of soil.
The depth of water per foot depth of soil may have been slightly
different for a different depth of soil.
.In comparing the I-inch to the' 2V2-inch irrigation it will be
noted by columns c and d of Figure 3 that the increase was
about 112 inch for each foot of soil. Those plats which were

13

Water-Ho?ding Ca1Jaci ty of Irrigated Soils

~~~~~~~~~~8ero~s

SYi~.~r--~:::'SiJ

IrrIC/-

S.
';s-

Affer ~
Irrtq-

::0

"::.."
,~

"0

05011 -water ai-oi/able

plants b.f'ore
,shO"'" by slo"fe cI I",u ' "'''us

Irrl9atlon

, Before

"''"....

. Irrtq- ~
ii
In

d
Rrter ~
Irrlrf' ~
:.~

Avallohl,

~
I:)

3
Q.

~
c..

0-

e-'
0

..

wt:rl'er added by Irrl9Qf,on

"how" by horizontal 'mes ;

thu.s

' After ~

Figure 5. -Water content before and after different irrigation treatments

on the Utah Experiment Station, Greenville Farm,
Lo gan , Utah. Work by Harris. et al.

given a 2lj2-inch irrigation weekly, as indicated in columns e

and /, contained an average of 3,4 inch of available water before
irrigation, but the actual increase from irrigation was only
~ inch.
.
In Figure 4 comparisons are made of the moisture content
under the three following conditions: (1) a plat which was given
1-inch applications weekly is compared to one given a 5-inch
application; (2) a 21/2-inch plat is compared to a '5-inch one; and
(3) ' two 5-inch weekly plats are compared. It will be noted in
Figure 4 that the plats which were given 5-inch irrigations contained more than 11,4 inches of available water after irrigation.
The greatest difference between , the moisture content of the
various plats occurs in the comnarison of columns a and b which

14

Bulletin No. 183

were given I-inch and 5-inch applications, respectively. Column

c shows more soil moisture before the application of 2112 inches
of water weekly than column e shows before the application of 5
inches weekly.
In Figure 5 comparisons are made between I-inch and 71/2inch irrigations; 2lj2- and 71;2-inch; and 7lj2- and 7lj2-inch irrigations. This figure shows that the plats which received 7~'2
inches weekly contained an average of more than 134 inches of
available water after irrigations. As shown in column a the soils
which were given I-inch irrigations had less than 112 inch of
available water before irrigation. The greatest difference occurs
between the I-inch and the 71;2-inch irrigations and the smallest
difference between the two plats which were given 7lj2 inches
weekly. This is show~ by comparing column a with column b
and column e with column f, respectively. Column a shoW's that
the soil contaIned less than 1;2 inch of available water before
the I-inch irrigations, whereas column e shows that the plats
which were given 7lj2 inches contained Ilj2 inches of available
water before irrigation. Furthermore, column b shows an increase resulting from irrigation of 11/2 inches, whereas column f
shows an increase of only 112 inch. ,Clearly the capacity of a soil
to absorb and retain water is greatly dependent on the initial
moisture content. Furthermore, the waste which occurred in
applying 7lj2 inches to a soil so wet as that represented by column e is clearly shown. Fully 4lj2 inches, or 60 per cent of the
7 112 inches applied, percolated below the 6-foot depth where it
was not needed by the crops because this depth of soil always
contained an abundant supply of moisture as a result of rather
frequent irrigations.
OTHER FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF WATER CAPACITY

The investigations of water capacity reported above were all

conducted on one type of soil, namely, the Millville loam of the.
Greenville Experiment Farm. It is therefore considered desirable
to report here some investigations of water capacity conducted
by one of the authors on a dark-colored, volcanic loam--one plat
near Grace, Idaho, and one near Central, Idaho, and in the Redfield fine s:lndy loam of the Sevier Valley, Utah.
Volcanic Loam Water Capacity.-The soil in Gem Valley,
Idaho, is 'a productive loam derived largely from the weathering
of the volcanic material which in late geological time overran
Gem Valley. The soil ranges in depth from 4 to 12 feet. It lies
on porous lava .rock permeated with cracks which form effective

Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

15

8011 wafer a.volloble to plants before

by slanted lines' thus-+

lrrlqaflon shown

AV(lI/able wafer added by Irrlqatlon

.5hown

by

hortz ontal lines: thus ---.

Figure 6.- Water content immediately before, one day after, and six
days after heavy flooding of a plat at Central, and a plat at
Grace, Idaho. Work by one of the authors.

natural drainage. Water-capacity tests were made at Grace and

at Central. 1
.
In order to determine the water capacity at Grace, a plat 25
feet square was selected. Around. this plat a levee was built
about 2 feet high. The water that was run into the plat was
measured over a triangular steel weir. To this plat, a total
lThe soil at Grace ha's an apparent specific gravity of 1.31 and a porespace of 52 per cent. The permeability was determined by ascertaining
the rate of disappearance of water held in the water-capacity basin. In
the Grace soil it was 'h inch to the hour. The wilting point of this soil
is 13.2 per cent, computed from the moisture equivalent.

Hi

B ulletin No . 183

amount of 21 acre-inches was applied. Amounts of water held

in the soil before irrigation, one day after irrigation, and six days
after irrigation are . presented in Figure 6. The amounts are
reported in inches of water per foot of soil.
In examining Figure 6 it will be noted that the soil at Central
was more compact than the Milfville loam of the Utah Experiment Farm at GreenviHe, having only 5 3,4 inches' pore space for
each foot of soil. However, the Grace soil was more open, having over 6~ inches' pore space in 12 inches of soil. Before
flooding, the Central soil contained nearly 3 inches of air space
and about 2%1. ~nches of water in each foot of soil. One day after
flooding it contained only 1112 inches of air and more than 4
inches of water, and 6 days after flooding it contained approxi~
mately 1% inches of air and 4 inches of water. It will be noted
also that the available water 6 clays after flooding is about 114
inches greater than before irrigatiol1.
The plat of soil near Grace was more moist before flooding
than the Central plat. One day after flooding it held an average
of two inches of air. Six days after irrigation it contained a
little more than 1~.~ inches of available soil moisture. The
average total amount of water held 6 days after flooding was 3.8
inches per foot as compared to 4.2 one day after. The soil therefore lost 0.4 inch per foot during the 5-day period.' The moisture determinations, together with the use of a heavy straw
mulch to prevent evaporation, supported the belief that practically all of this lost water, i. e., 0.4 times 6=2.4 inches, passed
below the 6-foot depth.
The work at -Central and at Grace seems to indic::tte that
under ordinary conditions of irrigation practice on typical loam
soilR of Gem Valley not more than 114 to 11/2 inches of water
per foot of soil may be absorbed and retained from any single
irrigation, regardless of quantities in excess of these which are
applied.
Fine Sandy Loam Water Capa.city.-Further determinations
of water capacity have been made by one of the authors on a
typical farm in Sevier Valley, Utah, the soil of which is a doop,
red, fine sandy loam. The Bureau of Soils of the United States
Department of Agriculture class this soil as the Redfield fin e
sandy loam. It comprises about 44,000 acres, or 30 per cent of
t he arable land in the valley
To determine the capacity of this soil for water a levee was
built around a plat 20 by .20' feet. Soil for the levee, as in other
cases, was taken from the outside so as. .to . prevent any disturbance of the surface soil. There was no crop growing on the
area. It was cleared of weeds. 'Soil sample3 were 'then taken to
I

17

W ater-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

a depth of 6 feet in 6 borings, making a total 9f 36 samples.

The holes were caref ully filled and an 18-inch irrigation was
applied to the plat. The following day, July 18, a second set of
soil samples was taken, and on A ugust 7, twenty days after
flouding, a thir d se t was t aken. The results are presented in
Figure 7. Of the 18.0 inches applied to the plat the upper 6 feet
r etained one day after flooding, 8.8 inches, or less than one-half.
Of t he total 8.8 inches held one day after flooding, 5.8 inches, or '
t wo-thirds, was held 20 days after flooding.
Immediately after obtaining .the first set of soil samples fol10wllJg the flooding, the plat was covered with weeds and straw
in order to reduce the' evaporation losses to a minimum. It.is
likely therefore that t h e maj or part of the decrease in water
content from 8.8 inches, in the upper six feet one day after
fico ding, to 5.8 inches 20 days aft er r esulted from downward
perco ~ ati on rather than fr om evaporation.
The moisture test s
20 days after flooding show that nea r ly 6 inches of water can
be absorbed al!\.l retained from one irrigation, or appr oximately
1 inch of wat,1' per ,fo ot dept h of soil.
The results of these field measurements of water capacity in
Gem Valley, Idaho, and Sevier Valley, Utah, are considered sufficiently accurate to form a valuable guide in the detennination
of the amounts of water to apply to the respective soils in single
irrigations. They ar e, however, less accurat e than the determinations on t h e Millville loam of the Greenville E xperiment
Farm heretofore consider ed.

tr.1

><

U1
ct>

'0

ct>

'"1

'
., S
ct>
::l
-<

(0'

.,q

M-

U1

ro p;

:<

M-

p;
P'

o
~

.,

p:l

S
,

..50'; wafe r a vr::lIlable to plant..5 bef'ore

Irnqatlon J hown by slanted line." t hus ....

9!dI
~

Figure 7. -W ater content immediately before, one day after, an d twenty

da ys afte r h eavy flo oding of a pla t on the Ut ah E xpe rim ent Station
F a rm , in t he Sevier Valley, R ichfield , Uta h .
Wo rk by one of t he au t hor s ,

18

Bulletin No. 183

Purpose of Water-Capacity Studies.-The application of these

water-capacity measurements in irrigation practice is clearly
the purpose of the investigations. A complete study of the
methods of irrigation with special reference to the preparation
of land, the size of irrigation stream best suited to the particular soil, the distance to run water over the land, together with
careful observation by each irrigator and thorough acquaintance
with his soil-all these additional factors must be fully considered and understood before the water capacity measurements reported here can be intelligently applied.
The importance of application together with some illustrations of how to apply these experiments is further considered
on page 22 to which the practical irrigator is now referred.
For the student of soils who is desirous of examining the results
of water-capacity studies by others, a brief review of some of
the outstanding investigations is now given.
SOME WATER-CAPACITY MEASUREMENTS BY OTHERS

For the reader who may be especially interested in the water

capacity of soils there is given below a brief abstract of the
results of water-capacity n1easurements by others together with
references which Inay be of assistance to the reader in obtaining
original reports in order more fully to examine the work. The
year in which the work of other investigators was reported is
given ill connection with the several references.
Kingl pioneered the study of the field-water capacity of soil
as parly as 1889. By driving 6-inch iron cylinders in the surface
foot of soil, removing the cylinder and excavating down to the
second foot, then driving the cylinder into the second foot, and
so on down, he obtained a sample from each of the upper 5-foot sections. After removal, the lower end of each
cylinder was covered with a perfarated sheet of tin. The samples were placed in
tank .of water for five days after which
they were taken out of the tank and drained 4 days. The moisture content or water capacity was then determined. The surface faot held 4.6 inches .of water, the second-, third-, and fourthfoot sections, consisting of a reddish clay, :held approxiInately
4.3 inches each, and the fifth foat, a fine sand,. held 3.8 inches.
These are the total amounts .of water, hygrascapic and capillary.
King found also, as reported in his boak on irrigation and
drainage, that in order to bring the soil moisture "from the
lower limit of the best productive stage of water content to the
upper limit requires an application of 4.5 inches of water for the

lKing, F. H.-Determinations of Water-holding Capacity of the Upper

Five Feet of Soil. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. (1889), pp. 196-199.

Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

19

upper 4 feet of soil". This is equal to a little more than 1.1 inches
of water for each foot of soil. Other experiments by King show
that if the soil has been permitted to become excessively dry, it
may require approximately 10 inches of water to bring the
moisture content of 5 feet of soil to the upper limit of retentive
capacity.
The water capacity of various field plats of soil was studil~d
by Willard and Humbert l in New Mexico during the years 1910
and 1911. Their first method of studying water capacity was by
means of applying small amounts of water to the lower end of
tanks by sub-irrigation. The tanks were 42 inches high. One
tank in a period of 2.00 days rose in moisture from 1.02 inches
of water in the surface foot to 2.80 inches, indicating thus a
power to raise arid retain 1.78 inches of water from an irrigation
()f 5.61 inches. In a second tank 1.57 inches were lifted from an
irrigation of 4.7 inches.
Further light concerning the capacity of the New Mexico soil
to retain water was obtained by nleasuring in three soil-moisture
determinations the amount of water that was lost by percolation
below 6 feet depth of soil during the season 1910. Percolation
losses in the soil below 6 feet were measured on plats in natural
(onc1ition which received a number of irrigation treatments.
To illustrate these results, the percolation losses, from plats
which received in irrigation during the season total depths of
8, 13, 16, and 20 inches, are reported below. The plats which
received 8 inches were given eight 1-inch irrigations; those receiving 13 inches were given four 31Jt-inch irrigations; those
that received 16 inches were given in general four 4-inch irrigations; and those which received 20 inches were given five 4-inch
applications. The plats which had a total of 8 inches lost 1.89
inches by percolation below a depth of 6 feet; those which had
13.0 inches lost 4.56 inches; those that received 16 inches lost
5.05 inches; and those which received 20 inches lost 7.33 inches.
These results indicate that the following losses occurred from
each of the different irrigations: from the 1-inch irrigation, 0.24
inches passed below 6 feet; from the 3 1Jt-inch irrigation, 1.14
went below 6 feet; from the "4-inch irrigation, 1.26 inches went
below 6 feet; and from the 5-inch applications 1.46 inches went
below .the 6-foot plane.
As a result of 6 years' investigation of the water capacity of
a uniform sandy loam soil in Nebraska, Burr2 found that this
lWillard, R. E., and Humbert, E. P.-Soil Moisture, N. Mex. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 86, pp. 86, figs. 11 (1913).
2Burr, W. W.-The Storage and Use of Soil Moisture. Neb. Agr. r~xp "
Sta. Rsch. Bul. 5, pp. 88, figs. 20 (1914).

Bulletin No. 183

soil would retain from 16 to 18 per cent of ~ts dry weight and
that 7 t9 8 per cent was available to the plants. This is equivalent to approximately 11,4 inches of water' to each foot of soil.
In field experiments concerning Inethods of preparing the
seed bed for winter wheat in Kansas, Cal}! found for the typical
season of 1912-1913 that the upper four feet of dark brown silt
loam surface soil and a reddish-brown silty loam held at seeding
time a maximum of 20.6 per cent, a minimum of 17.8 per cent,
and an average of 19.1 per cent. The greatest amount available
to plants was 6.~ per cent, the slnallest amount 4.5 per cent, and
tne average amount was 5.8 per cent.
In Texas Fraps2 studied the water capacity of six soils, ranging in texture from a sandy loam to a clay. He found the average
water capacity of soils in field tanks 18 inches deep at the end of
wet periods to be 58 per cent of the water capacity as measured
in the laboratory. The maximunl in the field was 69 per cent of
the laboratory capacity. Expressed in inches of water for each
foot depth of soi 3 he found the average maximum water content
at the end. of wet periods and the minimunl water content at the
driest period of an average year as presented in tabular form
below.
Laboraton
Number

I n ches of Water in Each Foot of Soil

Sa ndy Loam i Loam \ Loam ICla y Loam i Clay I Clay
1956
I 3333 1577
1580
I 3341 1 3335

TIME
I
End or Wet P e riod .. 1
End of Dry P eriod .. l
Differ ence, o r wate r \
available to crops

1. 79

2.78
2.02

3.43
1.73

4.38
2.34

4.47
2.45

4.50
3.00

0.48

0 .76

1.70

2.04

2.02

1.50

2.28

It will be noted from the work done by Fraps that the sandy
soil had capacity to absorb and retain approximat ely one-half
inch of water t o one fo ot depth of soil, whereas the clay loam
and one of t he clays had capacity to absorb and retain more than
2 inches of water in each foot of soil.
lCall , L . E.- The Effect of Diff ere nt Me t h ods of P repa ring a Seed
Bed f or Winte r W h eat Up on Yie ld, Soil Moisture, and Nit rat es. J our.
Am. Soc. Agro n. , V ol. 6, No.6 , pp . 249-259 ( 1914 ) .
2F r a ps, G. S.-Moistu re R elation s of Some T exa s Soils. T exas Agr.
Exp. Sta. B u l. 1 3, pp. 36, fi gs. 6 (19 1 5) .
3T h e a u thors h ave con ver ted moist u r e p er cent ages to in ch es of water
for each foot d ep th of soil. T he a pp a rent sp ecifi c g ravity of the soil
was assumed to be 1 .30 .

Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

21

W.o rking on the sandy soils of the Umatilla project in Oregon, AlIenI found that the soil is capable of holding against
gravity "only 4 inches of water in the surface 4 feet of soil".
After making this finding, only 4 inches of water was applied in
each irrigation. Because of the excessive losses of water from
the sandy soil of the Unlatilla Project through d~ep percolation,
the capacity of the soils to hold water was carefully studied.
Soil was placed in concrete tanks a little over 3 feet square inside
and 6 feet deep. The tanks were placed in large pits with their
tops even with the soil surface. Measurements were made of all
of the water applied and also of all that percolated through the
soil. In 1915 Dean, reporting to Allen 2 , applied water to the soil
in the concrete tanks in Vh -inch and 3-inch irrigations, the totals
for the year being 37 inches. Of this anlount 13 inches, or a
little more than one-third, percolated through the 6 feet of soil
in the 2 tanks which were growing alfalfa. More than twothirds percolated through the tank in which no crop was growing.
Conducting soil rnoisture studies on typical dry-farm soils in
Juab Valley, Harris and Jones 3 found that fallow land at seeding
time contained about 6.4 inches of available water in the upper .
6 feet of soil. They found also that probably never more than
10 inches of water in the upper 6 feet of soil is available to plallts.
Harding 4 made numerous determinations of moisture in
typical mountain soils before and after irrigation during the
years 1913 and 1914. He studied also sonle of the typical sandy
soils of the Minidoka Project in Idaho, the Sunnyside Project in
Washington, and the irrigated lands near Reno, Nevada. He
concludes that "the maxinlum depth of water per foot depth of
soil which can be retained under favorable conditions for the
upper 5 feet of soil is about 1.25 inches, which indicates that the
depths of single irrigations in excess of 6 to 8 inches, even under
favorable soil conditions, will not be retained in the upper 5 or
6 feet of soil".
.
The methods whereby the water-capacity studies may be
applied in irrigation practice, together with the extent to which
they may be applied, are now briefly considered.
IAllen, R. W.-The Work of the Umatilla Reclamation Project Experiment Farm in 1915 and 1916. U. S. D. A. , Bur. Plant Ind., West.
Irr. Agr. Cir. No 17, (1917), pp . 14-16.
2Ibid.
3Harris, F. S. and Jones, J. W .-Soil Moisture Studies Under DryFarming, Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 158 (1917) pp. 51, figs. 33.
4Harding, S. T.-Relation of the Moisture Equivalent of Soils to the
Moisture Properties Under Field Conditions of Irrigation. Soil Science,
Vol. VIII (1919), No.4, p. 303.

Bulletin No. 183

APPLICATION OF WATER-CAPACITY
MEASUREMENTS IN IRRIGATION
If the irrigator has dependable information concerning the
capacity of the soil to retain water he can apply this to his irrigation practice as outlined below. Suppose, for example, that he
has 20 acres of a sandy loam soil having an average depth of 4
feet and that below the 4-foot depth the , mat~rial is a coarse
gravel that will hold very little water. Suppose also that watercapacity measurements on a soil like the one in question indicate
that each foot of soil containing the amount of moisture ordinarily found before irrigation, will absorb and retain %. of an inch
of irrigation water. Under these conditions, to satisfy the
moisture capacity of each acre, it would be necessary to use %.
times 4, or 3 acre-inches per acre. When one remembers that a
stream of 1 cubic foot of water per second running 1 hour will
deliver enough water to cover 1 acre 1 inch deep, or in other
words, will deliver 1 acre-inch of water an hour, and further
that in the example under consideration it would be necessary to
have 3 acre-inches to the acre, he would clearly have to run a 1second-foot stream 3 hours for each acre, or 60 hours for the 20
acres. But in actual practice he may find this length of time to be
entirely inadequate. It is important to note that the time required as above given assumes that the water is spread uniformly
over the land surface. It is, however, extremely difficult to
obtain uniformity iil distribution of the water, especially on
open porous soil or on land that is uneven and poorly prepared
.for irrigation. The investigations of water capacity reported
here will not lessen the irrigator's difficulty in obtaining uniform distribution nor will they point the method toward removing this difficulty. They do, however, form fa 'b asis for
measuring approximately the degree of economy that is being obtained. For example, under the conditions of water capacity
above considered, if it is found necessary to run a 1-second-foot
stream of water 6 hours for each acre in order to get it over the
entire surface of the land, then clearly some parts of the field
are being over-irrigated with the result that half of the water
applied is being lost by percolation into the gravel. Such conditions frequently occur. They emphasize the need for so
improving the method of applying water that the entire land
surface can be irrigated without excessive loss of water. This
will assure approximate uniformity in distribution.
The irrigation methods by which deep percolation can be
avoided cannot be considered here. Some experiments are under

Water-Holding Capacity of Irrigated Soils

23

way on this problem, the results of which will, if significant, be

reported at some future time.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(1) This. bulletin concerns the capacity of soils in the
natural field condition to absorb and retain irrigation water.
(2) Most water-capacity tests have been made with soils
under laboratory conditions, the . results of which, tho valuable
as a means of soil study, do not apply accurately t.o the needs
of irrigation practice.
(3) A review of water-capacity measurements made by 10
investigators in 8 states and on 20 different classes of soil shows
that the amount of water absorbed by the soil when in need of
irrigation varied from 112 inch of water to 1 foot of soil in a
sand, to 2.25 inches of water to 1 foot in a clay loam soil.
(4) A typical deep volcanic loam near Grace, Idaho, one day
after flooding held more than 2 inches in the surface foot and
nearly 112 inch in the sixth foot in excess of the amount of water
held before irrigation. The same soil 6 days after irrigation
held only 1112 inches in the first foot and less than one-fifth inch
in the sixth foot.
(5) A typical shallow volcanic loan1 soil near Central, Idaho,
held over 2 inches in the surface foot one day after irrigation
and more than 134 inches in the fourth foot in excess of the
amount held before flooding. Six days after irrigation the first
foot of the shallow soil held 1213 inches and the fourth foot held
1112 inches more than the amount held before irrigation.
(6) A fine sandy loam of the Sevier Valley, Utah, retained
nearly 214 inches in the surface foot 1 day after flooding and
about 1 inch in the sixth foot. Twenty days after flooding, the
surface foot held 1 inch and the sixth foot held 0.9 of an inch
more than was held before the irrigation.
(7) As an average of nearly 3000 trials Widtsoe and
McLaughlin found that the upper 6 feet of the Greenville loam
soil retained a little more than 1 inch of water for each foot
of soil about 24 hours after irrigation.
(8) Investigations by Harris and Bracken show that plats
on the Greenville Farm to which 1 inch of water was applied
weekly held about ~ inch of available water per foot of soil
immediately before irrigation. The plats which were given 2112
inches weekly held 34 of an inch of available water' before irrigation, and those which were given 7112 inches weekly held a
minimum of 1112 inches of available water per foot of soil. In

24

Bulletin No. 183

addition, about 60 per cent of the 7 112 inches applied weekly

percolated below the depth of 6 feet where it was probably lost
to the use of plants.
(9) Much of the work on water capacity has been done on
soil which was growing crops and therefore has been based on
the application of water in irrigation. This method has left
some doubt as to the completeness of soil saturation.
(10) The authors' work was done on plats which were not
growing crops. Moreover, excessive amounts of water were
applied and cOlnpleteness of capillary saturation was thus
assured.
(11) The authors' work showed that one day after irrigation
the plat which was given 36 inches of water held 1/3 inch more
per foot of soil than the plat which was given 12 inches, also
that the 24-inch plat 'held ~ inch more water per foot of soil
than the l~-inch plat.
(12) Ten days after the heavy irrigations were applied by the
authors each of the plats held the same alnount of available
water, namely, aoout 11/2 inches per foot in the upper 6 feet.
(13) The moisture-capacity investigations here reported
show that as a general rule soils have the ~apacity to absorb
fronl V2 to 1V2 inches of water to each foot depth of soil that
needs moistening, the actual capacity for a given soil depending
on its texture and structure. Sandy or gravelly soils retain the
smaller amounts and clay loam soils retain the larger amounts.
(14) Information concerning the water capacity of soils
made available by the investigations here reported, and by other
similar studies, form the basis for intelligent determination of
the amounts of water to apply to various soils in single irrigations, but they do not assist the irrigator to obtain uniformity in
the lateral distribution of water. This must be accomplished
by careful preparation of land and proper adjustment of the
size of stream used to the soil irrigated.
(College Series No . 176.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

. The authors gratefully acknowledge their appreciation to all who

a ssisted in th e fi eld and laboratory work that is here reported. To
Vanez Wilson and Scott Ewing special thanks are extended for careful, systematic and pa instaking work in the soil moisture observations.
ful, systematic, and paim:taking work in the soil moisture observations.